“I am very pleased that Judge Crabb has followed the lead of courts across the country, including the United States Supreme Court, and fully stayed her ruling. By staying this ruling, she has confirmed that Wisconsin’s law regarding same-sex marriage remains in full force and effect. The state and all of its agencies and subdivisions must follow and enforce Wisconsin’s marriage law. County clerks do not have authority under Wisconsin law to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Judge Crabb’s stay makes this abundantly clear."

Said Baldwin:

“I believe that we owe it to the next generation to give them a Wisconsin that is more equal, not less equal. The Wisconsin I know deserves better than a Governor defending discrimination and an Attorney General prosecuting progress. Wisconsin should be a place where every family’s love and commitment can be recognized and respected under the law. It is time for Governor Walker and Attorney General Van Hollen to stop standing in the way of freedom, fairness and equality for all Wisconsinites. Love is love, family is family, and discriminating against anyone’s love, against anyone’s family, is just plain wrong.”

Comments

Can anybody tell me what the stay means, exactly? If it a stay, I presume that means it can be overturned. How is that done?

Posted by: Robert | Jun 14, 2014 3:36:33 PM

Sorry, typo...If it is a stay...

Posted by: Robert | Jun 14, 2014 3:36:58 PM

@Robert: The stay means marriages are on hold until the appeals process plays out, however long that takes. This is, alas, business as usual in states where the state (or someone with standing) is defending the ban. If Judge Crabb hadn't placed a stay, a higher court would have. The exceptions have been states, like Pennsylvania and Oregon, where marriages have gone ahead because no one is defending their bans. (Except NOM, but they don't count.)

Also the Wisconsin AG Van Hollen is not seeking reelection this fall. Hopefully he will be replaced a Democrat. As for the governor, it is difficult to see what he will do if reelected. He has publicly said he doesn't care one way or other if gay marriage happens in Wisconsin. There is a chance it will be left all alone to the AG. The good news is he has lost all his lead in recent polls and now tied with his democratic rival.

Posted by: simon | Jun 14, 2014 4:52:14 PM

Meanwhile Canada..Our neighbor to the North - LAUGHS at the USA...you know, that Land that drones on and on, about Liberty this, and Freedom that...you know, those Hypocritical creeds...GROW UP USA....you're looking like quite the Hypocrite and FOOL!

Posted by: disgusted American | Jun 14, 2014 5:19:58 PM

The AG is under oath to defend the laws of the state.

Posted by: Enchantra | Jun 14, 2014 6:45:52 PM

not if the laws are unconstitutional.

Posted by: candide | Jun 14, 2014 7:06:58 PM

The AG is under oath to protect the constitutional rights of all the citizens of his state. Other state AG's have opted not to defend unconstitutional, discriminatory laws, and they have the right to do so. They also happen to be saving their states money that could be used for more useful purposes than futile appeals.

Enchantra:
The oath is just a protocol and the law behind it is the core and has legal ramifications. You swear to speak the truth in courts under oath not because God will punish you for lying. It is only human law that does.
The wordings in the oath when the AG was sworn in is so vague. They have no legal weight. The law is the only important thing. He is not breaking any law when he refused to defend unconstitutional laws.
The same thing with the Declaration of Independence. The constitutions not the Declaration are what the courts will follow.
The courts don't recognize "moral views" in the Bible or any "moral view" of yours. They are irrelevant.

Posted by: simon | Jun 14, 2014 7:45:07 PM

If a federal judge says a law is unconstitutional against sexual orientation, Then the state government still upholds that law. Can't that be considered a hate crime by federal law and anyone upholding that law be arrested by the federal government for that crime?

Posted by: heather | Jun 15, 2014 10:42:16 AM

“I believe that we owe it to the next generation to give them a Wisconsin that is more equal, not less equal."

Nobody's asking for more equal. We're just asking for equal. EQUAL. Jeeze.

Posted by: Leroy Laflamme | Jun 15, 2014 10:53:52 AM

Don't understand your problem with the phase "more equal". She means more and more minority groups will be equal to other majority groups.
60's is more equal than the period before the 60's with the Civil Rights Acts. 21th century is more equal than the 20th century with more pro-gay legislation and court orders. She doesn't mean one group is more equal than the other groups. She means one time period is more equal compared to a previous time period. The main focus is time, not individual groups.

Posted by: simon | Jun 15, 2014 11:16:42 AM

She is not the first one using it. Bill Clinton said something similar:
"He’d be pleased that there is more equal opportunity politically and an African-American had been elected president,” Clinton said
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bill-clinton-martin-luther-king-jr-march-on-washington-95991.html#ixzz34inoQVAn
Of course it is not in the Republican's dictionary.